Search for: "POLICE DEPT"
Results 181 - 200
of 1,618
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Mar 2010, 10:14 pm
Appointing authority not required to give its former employee a reason for denying his or her application for reinstatementSalas v New York City Police Dept., 63 AD3d 468Eddie Salas a New York City police officer, resigned from his position on the eve of a departmental hearing scheduled to address allegations that he refused to obey a superior’s order to arrest a sleeping homeless person. [read post]
17 Sep 2012, 10:40 am
Albans City Police Dept., 2012 VT 62.Sometimes an entire case revolves around a single philosophical concept. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 8:45 am
New Haven Police Dept. [read post]
9 Nov 2012, 2:22 pm
Kansas City Missouri Police Dept. will be conducting a DUI checkpoint sometime this weekend. [read post]
28 Dec 2014, 1:34 pm
(E.g., People v Smith, 67 AD3d 1392, 1392 [4th Dept 2009] ("Where the officer's belief is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, the stop is illegal at the outset and any further actions by the police as a direct result of the stop are illegal"). [read post]
18 Mar 2021, 4:58 am
Here are the materials in Weaver v. [read post]
8 Aug 2022, 3:00 am
Police officers report that they are frequently subjected to verbal abuse. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 3:04 am
Burden of proof in disability claimsMusa v Nassau County Police Dept., 276 AD2d 851The Musa decision demonstrates the burden place on an applicant seeking workers’ compensation death benefits. [read post]
17 Jan 2024, 1:40 pm
Assisting agencies: Bonner County Sheriffs Office, Bonner EMS, Sam Owen Fire Dept. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 4:15 am
Exception to the exclusion of a “pre-reporting for work accident” for the purposes of receiving workers’ compensation benefitsMatter of O'Neil v City of Albany Police Dept., 2011 NY Slip Op 00759, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentIn general, accidents that occur outside of work hours and in public areas away from the workplace are not compensable. [read post]
16 Apr 2018, 9:54 pm
Dept. of Workforce Services (Utah Ct. [read post]
8 Jan 2017, 8:04 am
Notably, "blanket exemptions for particular types of documents are inimical to FOIL's policy of open government" (Matter of Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267, 275 [1996]; accord Matter of Thomas v New York City Dept. of Educ., 103 AD3d 495, 498 [2013]; Matter of New York State Defenders Assn. v New York State Police, 87 AD3d 193, 196 [2011]), and the agency must "articulat[e] a particularized and specific justification for denying… [read post]
11 May 2021, 4:00 am
[Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Town of Wallkill Police Dept. [read post]
11 May 2021, 4:00 am
[Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Town of Wallkill Police Dept. [read post]
7 Jan 2019, 2:00 am
City of Toledo Police Dept., 785 F.3d 1128 (6th Cir. 2015). [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 7:13 pm
From The New York Times: Critics have raised many questions. [read post]
7 May 2010, 3:25 am
., 1st Dept., 251 A.D.2d 62John Martinez, a New York City probationary police officer, refused to answer question posed by a superior concerning his conduct while off-duty and outside his jurisdiction despite being given “use immunity” with respect his answers to the question.Individuals granted “use immunity” cannot have their answers to the questions used against them in a subsequent criminal proceeding. [read post]
20 Jul 2007, 6:50 am
""It appears to me that the Police Dept. was so excited to get rid of this case" to Nifong "that they just handed it to him" and "Pontius Pilate-d it. [read post]
14 Dec 2020, 4:00 am
Citing Matter of Bellamy v New York City Police Dept., 87 AD3d 874, the Appellate Division opined that the Fund met its burden of showing a possibility that disclosure of [such] names could endanger the lives or safety of police retirees, as required to exempt them from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law §87(2)(f)". [read post]
14 Dec 2020, 4:00 am
Citing Matter of Bellamy v New York City Police Dept., 87 AD3d 874, the Appellate Division opined that the Fund met its burden of showing a possibility that disclosure of [such] names could endanger the lives or safety of police retirees, as required to exempt them from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law §87(2)(f)". [read post]
